About Grace Aylmer

Posts by :

Three things in life are certain: death, taxes, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pushing for massive tax cuts for giant corporations and the managerial elite. In a new million dollar ad campaign launched last week, the Chamber depicts average Americans at work, whether behind a cash register or on a factory floor, while the words “create jobs,” “families,” and “the American dream” flash across the screen. In each of these ads, the speakers demand “tax reform,” without ever really specifying what that means. It all seems innocent enough, and could easily fool viewers unfamiliar with the Chamber. But make no mistake, dig down, and the Chamber isn’t interested in tax policies that will invest in Main Street businesses and working Americans; it wants huge cuts for its corporate membership and the ultra-wealthy who run and own these companies. The Chamber’s new ad campaign is just the group’s latest attempt to advance a Big Business agenda by pretending that it would help working people and small businesses.

So how exactly is the Chamber proposing to change our tax code? Its “Tax Reform Now” website is remarkably devoid of specifics, limiting itself to calling for “pro-growth” tax reform. “Pro-growth” is Chamber-speak for trickle-down economics: cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy and employment and wage growth will magically appear. (Of course, the data prove trickle-down to be nothing more than a right-wing fantasy.)

The Chamber’s new ad campaign doesn’t offer many specifics either. The ads may call for closing loopholes, but the Chamber fails to mention exactly which loopholes.

If you want to really understand what the Chamber wants to get out of tax “reform,” you have to look at the group’s history of lobbying for a bevy of tax giveaways for giant corporations and the ultra-rich. Let’s take, for example, the subject of closing loopholes, mentioned in the Chamber’s ads. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem likely that one of the loopholes the Chamber wants closed is the CEO Bonus loophole, which allows companies to exploit a quirk in the law and give their CEOs multimillion-dollar bonuses and deduct this amount from their taxable income. This loophole effectively subsidizes already out of control executive pay while increasing the incentives for excessive risk-taking, and it costs taxpayers an estimated $5 billion a year!

Nor are we holding our breath waiting for the Chamber to demand that the carried-interest loophole be closed, given that they have supported retaining the loophole in the past. This loophole allows hedge fund and private equity fund managers to claim part of what is really salaried income as capital gains instead, which allows them to pay only a 20 percent tax rate as opposed to the 39.6 percent income tax they likely otherwise would pay. This loophole benefits only 2,000 taxpayers yet it is blowing a hole in the budget, estimated at around $2 billion per year.

While the Chamber at least mentions closing loopholes in its ads, there are lots of things it doesn’t mention, probably because they benefit corporations and the wealthy and not the working people featured in the ads. Let’s start with the Chamber’s supportfor a rate cut for “pass-through” businesses (companies that file taxes through the owners’ individual taxes versus paying corporate tax.) Such a rate cut would disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

While the Chamber may claim that cutting the tax rate on pass-through enterprises would benefit small businesses, more than 70 percent of filers with pass-through income already pay rates at or below 15 percent, meaning they would see no benefit from the proposal. The vast majority of this tax cut will really go to the Chamber’s millionaire and billionaire allies, not to mom and pop shops. What’s more, real small businesses may be hurt because big tax cuts may result in big spending cuts, thereby reducing funding for services vital to Main Street businesses, including investment in infrastructure, education, and assistance for small businesses.

Another item on the Chamber’s tax cut wish list is abolishing the estate tax. The Chamber has been a staunch opponent of the estate tax for years, claiming that it harms family businesses, though that’s plainly not true. Under the current rules, the estate tax only applies to estates valued at more than is $5.49 million and $10.98 million per couple. Estimates show that only 50 small farms and small business estates in all of the United States are likely to pay estate tax in 2017.

The Chamber has argued time and time again that tax “reform” must include cutting the corporate tax rate. The Chamber loves to claim that our taxes are the highest in the developed world, and argues that by making America’s corporate tax rate competitive with the rest of the world, jobs will be kept in America. What the Chamber fails to mention is that the effective rate companies pay in the U.S. is actually much lower (18.6 percent on average, with some industries like gas and electric companies paying a rate in the low single digits). What’s more, many wealthy corporations frequently get away with paying no federal income taxes. And a recent study has shown that companies that pay lower effective rates have actually reduced employment while companies that pay higher effective rates have added employment. Slashing the corporate tax rate as the Chamber wants will pad the pockets of CEOs and rich stockholders, while doing very little to spur investment or create jobs.

The tax code changes championed by the Chamber and seemingly agreed to by Trump and the GOP are rigged in favor of billionaires and big corporations – they constitute a massive tax giveaway to the super rich and a payback scheme for the Chamber’s big business members.

So don’t believe those Chamber ads you may see on TV – the Chamber’s version of tax ”reform” won’t help the working Americans featured in the ads, but it would line the pockets of the corporations and oligarchs who least need a tax cut.

This week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host its annual Small Business Summitin Washington, DC. The stated purpose of the three day event is to provide small businesses with tools and strategies “to successfully compete in today’s rapidly changing business environment.” While this sounds well and good, the Chamber unsurprisingly fails (yet again) to mention that its role as “the voice of small business” is really just a sham.

The Summit agenda consists of a multitude of panels, including “How to Get Your Company Thinking Like a Startup,” “Your State’s Lawsuit Climate and How It Affects Small Businesses,” and “How and Why Your Business Grows (or Doesn’t).” Sure, these panels sound innocent enough to someone who isn’t well-versed on the Chamber, but in reality—they hide the many times the Chamber has lobbied to stack the deck against small businesses. We’ve taken the liberty of renaming and reframing the Summit panels so that they are more honest about the Chamber’s relationship with small business:

Litigating Against Small Business for Beginners: Chamber vs. Main Street

Looking to keep consumers out of court? Hoping to sue a mom-and-pop shop? This panel is for you!

While the Chamber may claim to be the voice of small businesses in Washington, when it comes to litigation, it can be consistently relied upon to favor the huge corporations that fund it. Whether it’s arguing for reduced access to the courts, opposing stricter supervision of Wall Street banks designed to reduce the risk of future financial crises, fighting for Big Oil against emissions controls, or supporting Big Pharma’s schemes to keep drug prices sky high, the Chamber always comes down on the side of its deep-pocketed Big Business patrons, ignoring the impact on small businesses. In fact, in a report earlier this year, Chamber Watch found that the Chamber files a brief roughly every other day of the work week, and in almost 60 percent of cases, the Chamber supported at least one Fortune 500 company. In comparison, it supported a domestic small business only 7 percent of the time. In fact, it supported a foreign multinational twice as often as it did a domestic small business. Companies the Chamber litigated on behalf of included State Farm, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Allstate, Berkshire Hathaway, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, AIG, and JP Morgan Chase, ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, BP, PPL, and Shell, to name a few.

Regulations help Small Business? Deny Deny Deny 101

Have you heard the term “red tape” but aren’t sure how to work it into every day conversation? Stop by this lecture to hear from Chamber experts on their experience in denying that regulations actually help rather than hurt small businesses. This panel will equip you with all the tools you need to ignore the statistics that show small businesses support regulation and steer the conversation elsewhere. Did someone say red tape?

The Chamber has a long history of opposing regulations under the guise of being a voice for small business. From the overtime rule, to the Clean Water Rule to the Clean Power Plan, to the open internet rules (have we made our point?) it has yet to meet a regulation it didn’t want rolled back. According to a poll by Small Business Majority, 86 percent of small business owners agree some regulation of business is necessary for a modern economy, and 93 percent of them agree their business can live with some regulation if it is fair, manageable and reasonable. What’s more, 78 percent of small employers agree regulations are important in protecting small businesses from unfair competition and to level the playing field with big business. Another 79 percent of small business owners support having clean air and water in their community in order to keep their family, employees and customers healthy, and 61 percent support standards that move the country towards energy efficiency and clean energy.

Net Non-Neutrality: Even We Know We’re Wrong on This One

Are you an AT&T or Comcast employee who accidentally wandered into this Summit? You’re in the right place now!

The Chamber has conceded that the vast majority of Americans, support net neutrality. In fact, even smaller internet service providers (ISPs,) part of the small business community that the Chamber loves to claim to represent, support net neutrality regulations because they prevent larger competitors from gaining an unfair advantage. Proponents of net neutrality argue that by ensuring equal treatment of all internet content, companies compete on a level playing field and consumers are able to access whatever content they want without issue. Meanwhile, the Chamber and other opponents argue that net neutrality regulations limit incentives for ISPs to improve their networks. These critics argue that without charging companies to guarantee access to content, ISPs won’t have the money necessary to make these investments. In reality, investment in internet infrastructure has not decreased as a result of net neutrality regulations. That leaves only one constituency in favor of deregulation: giant telecom companies.

With its anti-small business record so clear, why does the Chamber still keep up its yearly sham? Apparently the “Big Business Summit” just doesn’t have the same ring…

Wells Fargo has done it again. And again. And again. This time, instead of creating fake accounts that customers weren’t aware of, or allegedly charging them for auto insurance they didn’t need, Wells Fargo has come for the mom and pop shops of Main Street, USA.

A new class action lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo has been overcharging small businesses for processing credit card transactions, asserting that Wells’ 63-page Merchant Processing Application included “voluminous legalese that could not possibly be read in its entirety or understood by merchant customers.” The suit claims that various fine print provisions allowed the bank to charge merchants arbitrary fees.

According to the suit, one of the plaintiffs in the case, a small business owner in Charlotte, was charged monthly fees for failing to meet a minimum number of transactions, a minimum he believed had been waived. Another plaintiff, a Pennsylvania small business owner, claims he was charged numerous additional fees including monthly charges even after his business closed. In each case, fine print clauses in the contract were used to justify the imposition of these additional fees.

This case is yet another example of Wells Fargo using fine print to rip off its customers, be they individual consumers or small businesses. In the fake account scandal, Wells continuously used forced arbitration clauses buried in fine print to block class actions challenging its improper behavior. These “rip-off” clauses, commonly found in contracts for a variety of financial products such as banks accounts, credit cards, and loans, ban individuals and small businesses from banding together and challenging wrongdoing in court.

Instead of litigating allegations of fraud and other abusive practices in court before a neutral judge, banks like Wells Fargo can force consumers and small businesses into an individual and secretive arbitration process where the arbitrator who will hear the case is a person chosen by the financial institution. By robbing defrauded customers of their day in court, financial institutions are able to get away with widespread misconduct, because few people have the time or resources to pursue often small dollar claims alone in secret arbitration.

While much of the Wells coverage to date has been heavily focused on defrauded consumers, rip-off clauses harm small businesses as well, making it nearly impossible for small business owners to protest hidden fees, illegal debt collection, and other deceptive or unfair practices. Almost any time a mom and pop store does business with a financial services company, chances are the contract contains a rip-off clause. Nearly all credit card agreements force customers into arbitration if there is a dispute – and credit cards are one of the top three sources of short term capital used by small businesses.

It seems probable that this latest case will end up being another instance in which Wells will attempt to use forced arbitration as a “get out of jail free” card.

Fortunately, a newly released rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will prohibit banks and lenders that break the law from stripping consumers of the right to join together and hold these institutions accountable in class action lawsuits. Small businesses that use consumer financial products will also be protected by this rule.

That’s the good news. Now the bad news. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s most powerful business lobby, is already pushing Congress to kill the rule and rob consumers of the ability to join together to hold banks accountable in court for wrongdoing. Without the CFPB arbitration rule, Wells Fargo and other financial services companies will continue to pocket billions in ill-gotten gains at the expense of consumers and small businesses. This new rule will restore accountability and transparency, making our financial system stronger and safer for all of us.

The Chamber has a tough choice to make. On the one hand, it has lobbied extensively against limits on rip-off clauses and is now is urging Republicans in Congress to repeal the rule under the Congressional Review Act. On the other, it repeatedly claims to be the voice of small business.

So, when the rubber meets the road, will the Chamber continue lobbying to give a free pass to institutions like Wells Fargo, or will it stand up for the small businesses it claims to represent in its promotional materials? If the Chamber really is the voice of small of business, then this latest case against Wells Fargo presents a perfect opportunity for the Chamber to put its money where its mouth is. The Chamber should take a stand on behalf of mom and pop shops by ceasing to defend the rip-off clauses big banks use to take advantage of small businesses. Otherwise, it’s simply defending corporate greed.

This past February, the Chamber outlined what it believes to be the ten most pressing policies that require action at the NLRB and the many instances in which the Obama-era NLRB allegedly “stack[ed] the deck against employers.” The list covers a range of anti-worker topics, many of which Kaplan boasts about having experience in on his Linkedin account, including his “efforts to fight DOL overtime rules.” The overtime rulewould provide overtime pay to millions of workers and would have the salutary benefit of exerting upward pressure on wages for middle income Americans whose salaries have long been stagnant. Kaplan also boasts about drafting the “Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act,” a piece of legislation the Chamber backed, which sought to undo the NLRB rule that cut the waiting time for union elections down to as few as 10 days.

While the Chamber’s labor policy wish list touches on a plethora of issues, it focuses most intently on collective bargaining. Collective bargaining, an effective means of raising wages (no wonder the Chamber hates it!), is the process by which workers, with their unions, negotiate contracts with their employers. Terms of employment that are oftentimes covered in collective bargaining include wages, benefits, hours, worker safety and a slew of other protections. The NLRB is frequently asked to rule on disputes relating to collective bargaining in addition to many other high-profile labor topics, including examination of “joint employer” relationships, and will be looked to to make a determination as to whether or not graduate students should be considered employees with the right to unionize.

Kaplan isn’t the only bad actor being nominated to the NLRB. William Emanuel of the law firm Littler Mendelson, has also been nominated, and has also received supportfrom the Chamber. Kaplan and Emanuel, both nominated at the end of June both had hearings less than 3 weeks later, one of the speediest nomination processes thus far in the Trump administration.

Trump, the Chamber, and their GOP allies in the House and Senate have all complained that under Obama, the NLRB imposed what they deem to be burdensome regulations on businesses. Their criticisms of the NLRB indicate that they fundamentally misunderstand that one of the major functions of the board is to enforce the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, guaranteeing the right of most private sector employees to organize.

It comes as no surprise that the Chamber is asking for a swift confirmation process. Randy Johnson, senior vice president of labor, immigration, and employee benefits for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, refers to Kaplan as a “balanced and thoughtful” individual, going on to say that the Chamber has “worked with Marvin over the years and he will be a great addition to the NLRB.” Which, when translated out of Chamber-speak, means something more along the lines of, “this is just the guy we need to achieve those ten policy goals!” The Chamber’s support for each of these nominees is rooted in its desire to destroy worker protections in an effort to protect corporate profits; the speed at which the nomination process is occurring just goes to show how antsy the Chamber and its GOP allies are to strip workers of their rights and hand over even more power to giant corporations.

If there was any doubt left in our mind (there wasn’t) that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is at the helm of the Trump administration’s sinking ship, the House Republicans’ budget proposal, released yesterday, certainly cleared that up. The “Building a Better America” budget proposal calls for significant cuts to public services while giving major tax handouts to the wealthy. While the budget seems to make cuts across all portfolios, there are three particular ones in which the Chamber is well versed in deregulating: financial reform, the safety net, medical malpractice reforms, and tax reform.

“Building a Better America” assumes adoption of the Financial CHOICE Act, a sweeping Wall Street deregulation bill that the Chamber has been lobbying in support of. The CHOICE Act (or as we like to call it, the “Wrong Choice Act”) would cripple the CFPB, something the Chamber has longed to destroy since it first came to be. What does the Chamber have against the CFPB? Easy. The CFBP works to protect consumers from unsavory and sometimes illegal behavior by the big financial institutions, many of which the Chamber represents. The CHOICE Act also repeals the Volcker Rule, a piece of legislation the Chamber loves to hate. The Volcker Rule ensures that banks refrain from engaging in speculative trading with investors’ money and brings them back to the regular business of banking, which reduces the chance of repeating the 2007 financial crisis. Much like with the rest of the CHOICE Act, the Chamber and the Big Banks are anti-Volcker Rule because it confines Wall Street’s ability to make short term profits that become big bonuses for executives.

Next up, the safety net. The Chamber has a long history of aggressively lobbying against Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The budget proposal would cut funding for Medicare by $487 billion over 10 years, while also cutting Medicaid and other health care programs by $1.5 trillion over the same amount of time. Unlike President Trump, the Chamber has never promised to spare Social Security from cuts. One specific cut to social security that the budget proposes is Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), something the Chamber has long tried to reform. The House budget contains $4 billion worth of cuts to social security, and while these cuts may be music to the Chamber’s ears, it is a devastating proposal for the average American.

Republicans would be remiss to pass up the opportunity to make outlandish claims regarding the practice of defensive medicine. The proposal includes “reforms” outlined in the “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017,” a bill the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform lobbied heavily on behalf of. The Chamber and its health care lobby allies assert preposterous estimates on the prevalence of defensive medicine and the costs incurred by it, despite those claims being debunked. The budget seeks to restrict patients’ rights in an effort to do the bidding of the health care lobby, something the Chamber is familiar with.

Lastly, tax reform. The tax reform proposals championed by the Chamber and largely adopted in the proposed House budget are made up of comprehensive tax giveaway to the wealthy and a payback scheme for the Chamber’s big business allies. The Chamber has said before of tax reform that it “will be at the table throughout the process—because anyone who isn’t at the table risks ending up on the menu.” And, based on this budget, they weren’t joking around. The House Republican budget calls for lowering the corporate tax rate and downplays the importance of the tax, given that it “actually raises relatively little revenue.” The Chamber has long championedreducing the tax rate on business income. And while conservative rhetoric may try to push the narrative that taxing corporations raises little revenue, the truth is that the Chamber/Trump/GOP tax reform proposal could cost as much as an estimated $7.8 trillion over ten years, disproportionately benefitting high-income households.

The House budget proposal is nothing more than a Chamber-dreamed windfall for corporations and Wall Street. Building a Better America or Building a Better Corporate America? Based on what we see in this budget blueprint, it is evident which the Chamber has been lobbying for.

As President Trump pulls America out of the Paris climate agreement and Congress threatens to take health care away from 22 million people, it is becoming more and more clear that conservatives are making policy choices intended to scratch the backs of big companies and the wealthy few rather than protect regular Americans. Beyond the usual pandering to corporate interests, some conservatives are taking this a step further and using the critical federal budget process to push dangerous policy, sneaking in additional “poison pill riders” to this must pass funding legislation.

Recently, the House Appropriations subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government released its budget draft, which includes a harmful policy rider that stops the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from working on or finalizing a rule that would require corporations to tell shareholders (the owners of their companies) how they spend money to influence politics.

Corporate attempts to influence our politics are nothing new, but since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United corporations are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcomes of our elections. One way they do this is through trade associations like the National Restaurant Association, the Business Roundtable, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Many of the country’s largest companies do not disclose what they pay to their trade associations that both spend money directly on elections, and spend money lobbying on behalf of their corporate members.

The use of this secret channel is particularly troublesome because these trade associations oftentimes have a smoke and mirrors approach to policy. The Chamber, the nation’s largest business lobby, claims to work in the interests of small businesses when in reality it the Chamber uses its $275 million budget to push the biggest corporate agendas on issues almost every issue from the environment to worker safety to financial regulation to healthcare. Similarly, the Chamber claims to be bipartisan and yet it spent $29 million in election spending exclusively benefiting Republican candidates in 2016.

Many of the companies funding the Chamber take public stances in opposition to the Chamber’s, but the lack of information about the Chamber’s monetary gifts provides those companies with political cover. Disney, for instance, has committed to fighting climate change by pledging to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2020. It signed the American Business Act on Climate Pledge in support of the Paris climate agreement and took the Caring for Climate pledge as part of the United Nations Global Compact. Unfortunately, however, Disney also funds the Chamber, which actively lobbies against climate-friendly policies and funded the very study that President Trump cited in his rational for exiting the Paris Agreement. This secret Chamber funding led shareholders to file a resolution at Disney this spring asking the company to disclose its payments to the Chamber in addition to any other money it spends on lobbying.

Unfortunately, Disney isn’t the only company whose alleged corporate values are at odds with the aggressive work of the Chamber. Shareholders also filed the same lobbying disclosure resolution at UnitedHealth Group this year citing the company’s undisclosed funding of the Chamber. In just 15 months between 2009 and 2010, the Chamber spent more than $102 million dollars opposing the ACA. This money was funneled to the Chamber by the big health insurers. Among the companies to supplythe funding was UnitedHealth, who unlike its peers, Aetna, Anthem, CIGNA and Humana, does not disclose trade association memberships.

In Citizens United the Supreme Court made the assumption that disclosure would be the norm, allowing shareholders and customers to “hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.” In reality, many companies still spend money on elections and on lobbying in secret, and shareholders deserve to access to details about this spending. In an era where corporate donors dominate our elections and our President is overly amenable to the Chamber’s corporate agenda, shareholders and the American public need all the transparency they can get. If Republicans have their way, investors will be kept in the dark and trade associations will continue to push for Big Business policies at the expense of everyday Americans.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wasted no time in opposing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s final arbitration rule that was released Monday, criticizing it as a “brazen” act.

Too often, consumers are blocked by “rip-off clauses”, a fine-print trick that banks and predatory lenders use to evade accountability and conceal illegal behavior by prohibiting individuals and small businesses from having their day in court and forcing them into opaque arbitration proceedings. Under arbitration, the corporation gets to pick the arbiter who will hear the case. As such, arbitration inherently stacks the deck against consumers and small businesses and oftentimes serves as a get-out-of-jail-free card for rogue financial institutions, leaving consumers defrauded and without any other legal recourse.

The newly issued rule would restore consumers’ right to band together in class-action lawsuits against financial firms. Why is this so important? Consider the case of a bank that improperly charges millions of account holders a $50 fee. There are few people who will expend the time and energy necessary to litigate a $50 dispute on their own in arbitration. But this same $50 fee, improperly levied on millions of customers may generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the bank. Class actions allow consumers to band together and pursue their small dollar claims in court without having to invest time or money. By prohibiting class actions and requiring individual arbitration, rogue banks and other corporations essentially provide themselves with impunity to repeatedly abuse consumers. These giant corporations understand that without the possibility of suing in a class action, the vast majority of consumers will just eat the small fees they may improperly charge.

It should come as no surprise that the rule has the Chamber and its Wall Street friends on red-alert, given that it has the potential cost the industry billions. The Chamber has lobbied extensively against limits on the “rip-off clause,” hoping instead that corporations will be able to continue ripping off consumers with latitude, as we saw in last year’s Wells Fargo fake account scandal. The Wells Fargo case also illustrates another huge advantage of arbitration for corporations. Because arbitration takes place in secret rather than in open court, in the rare instances where a consumer arbitrates a dispute against a corporation, it helps the corporation prevent its alleged misconduct from becoming public, which might trigger investigations by prosecutors or regulatory agencies.

In a joint statement by Lisa Rickard, the president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) and David Hirschmann, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, the Chamber asserts its view that the rule has a “complete disregard for the will of Congress, the administration, the American people, and even the courts” and that it ignores “the practical benefits of arbitration, as compared to the court system.”

Sure, the rule may go against the wishes of the current administration, one that is backed by corporate interests who stand to benefit from forced arbitration, but it most certainly does not “disregard” the American people, “or even the courts” for that matter. In fact, it aims to allow people to have their day in court! What the Chamber fails to mention in its scathing critique of the rule, is that more often than not, the “practical benefits” of arbitration fall only upon the big banks and other huge corporations, and not on everyday consumers and small businesses who are too often taken advantage of by corporations intent upon padding their bottom lines through questionable means.

In addition to the Chamber’s statement, the ILR’s Senior Vice President of Legal Reform Policy, Matt Webb, said in an NPR interview that the CFPB’s actions are “an example of an agency largely going rogue, doing the bidding of the plaintiffs’ trial bar and doing something that’s going to be harmful to consumers as well as the business community.”

It seems perplexing, even shocking, that the Chamber is feigning concern for consumers given its history of lobbying on behalf of nearly every industry, often at the expense of average Americans. The Chamber also seems to overlook the fact the CFPB spent three years compiling and analyzing data, resulting in the most comprehensive empirical study ever done on arbitration, requested by lawmakers, demonstrates that forced arbitration effectively wipes out consumer claims.

Not only is the Chamber lobbying against this rule, much like it has lobbied for legislation to restrict individual and small business access to the courts in the past, it also goes to court itself to argue that it should be more difficult for others to exercise this same fundamental right. In fact, the Chamber went to court to argue that others should be denied this same right over 100 times during a recent three year period. How’s that for hypocrisy?

What’s more, in recent years, the Chamber has involved itself in class action cases on behalf of BP, Goldman Sachs, Corinthian Colleges, and a boatload of other corporate bad actors. Should we still be taking their feigned concern over how this rule effects consumers seriously?

Now, the Chamber has vowed to do whatever it can to keep consumers from having their day in court, whether by suing the bureau once the arbitration rule becomes final or by lobbying Republicans to repeal the law using the Congressional Rule Act (CRA).

Let’s be clear about what the Chamber’s crusade in favor of “rip-off clauses” is really about: corporate impunity. The Chamber is once again seeking to make it harder for individuals and small businesses to use the civil justice system to hold corporations and financial institutions accountable for wrongdoing. Forced arbitration shields the Chamber’s Wall Street and big business allies from accountability for anti-consumer practices, thereby encouraging unsavory business practices by allowing violations to go unchecked. The Chamber has shown time and time again that it is neither the voice for small business or consumers, and its unflagging efforts to restrict access to the courts are par for the course. The Chamber may have claimed that the CFPB went rogue, but it and the big banks it represents are the real rogue actors in this story.

Congratulations on your new role as Chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Because this is an important position, one that has the potential to steer the direction the Chamber takes throughout the next year, we wanted to remind you of an op-ed you wrote last September for the WashingtonPost titled, “How corporations can be a force for good.”

In your piece, you call upon companies to use their influence to promote policies that benefit the labor force and the planet, while still yielding profits. In the months since your September op-ed, President Trump was elected and took office, and he now has begun rolling back a whole raft of policies that were aimed at protecting workers and the environment. As such, there’ve been no shortages of opportunities for companies to, in your well-timed words, “be a force for good,” by using their influence to oppose the rollback of these policies.

Let’s start with Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Allstate has expressed concern over the impacts of climate change, signing onto the 2013 CERES Climate Declaration, as well as committing to reduce energy use. While we haven’t heard from Allstate, we have heard a chorus of business voices disavowing President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. From Facebook, to Google, to Tesla, companies used their influence to defend environmental responsibility, because like you said, “fully integrating social good into a corporation’s purpose is also good for business.”

In light of your own support for action to combat climate change as well as the support of much of the business community, Americans and shareholders want to know what will you do to reverse the Chamber’s anti-climate policies? It is the Chamber that funded the debunkedstudy that Trump used to justify his decision to withdraw from the Paris accord. What’s more, the Chamber is one of the loudest and most influential voices lobbying and litigating against action on climate change. Are you not concerned, in your new role leading the Chamber – the very entity that lauds itself as the voice for business – that it is out of step with some of the country’s other largest corporations? “Corporations should be encouraged and rewarded for stepping up to solve society’s problems,” you wrote, and in present times, it would seem that the well-being of our planet is one of society’s more pressing problems. What will you do to get the Chamber to change direction and step up to solve the global crisis of climate change?

It isn’t just climate policy, however, that has companies at odds with the Chamber. At Allstate, you raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour because, in your words, “it was good business to do so” (something many others agree on) and because “more prosperous communities with better-educated workers and customers also provide a much better economic and business climate.” Why then, does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which you now chair, oppose raising the minimum wage every chance it gets, while also continuing its fight against overtime pay? As chairman of the Chamber, what will you do to reverse the Chamber’s ferocious opposition to raising the minimum wage and implementing the overtime rule?

What’s more, 57 percent of your employees at Allstate are women, many of them with management roles. While Allstate’s commitment to hiring and promoting women is to be commended, are you aware that the Chamber consistently lobbies against policies that promote workplace equity for women? What will you do to reverse the Chamber’s opposition to pro-women, pro-family policies such as equal pay, paid leave and banning pregnancy discrimination?

If you are serious about corporations being a force for good, then you must, in your capacity as Chamber chairman, ensure that the Chamber reverses course on all of these issues. And if under your leadership, the leading voice of Big Business in Washington continues to use its megaphone to be the loudest advocate for policies that harm workers, women and the planet, it seems that your own advice would leave you with no choice but to step down from your position as chairman. Because after all, in your words, “social good is good for business.” If the Chamber won’t reverse course and support social good, then it isn’t doing good for business. Neither for your own company’s good, nor those of many of your peers.

ince the beginning of the debate around passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has worked to undermine efforts to expand access to healthcare for tens of millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans.

In just 15 months between 2009 and 2010, the Chamber spent more than $102 million dollars, funneled to it by the big health insurers, on opposing the ACA. Fast forward to 2017, and we see that the Chamber has far from given up its crusade against the ACA, and recently urged the House to pass the American Health Care Act (AHCA) which would repeal the ACA. If the ACA were repealed, it would likely result in 23 million Americans losing their health insurance and would weaken a host of important protections such as the requirement that health insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Now, with 13 Republican senators crafting a Senate version of the AHCA in secret, we wanted to see to what level the Chamber has the ear of these powerful senators. It should perhaps come as no surprise that the Chamber, the largest non-disclosing outside spender in 2016 congressional races, spent more than $16 million between 2012 and 2016 supporting the campaigns of ten of the 13 senators authoring the bill.

MONEY SPENT BY U.S. CHAMBER TO SUPPORT SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL AUTHORS

SENATOR

MONEY SPENT BY CHAMBER, 2012-2016

LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN)

$1,000

MIKE LEE (R-UT)

$1,000

JOHN THUNE (R-SD)

$3,500

TOM COTTON (R-AR)

$5,000

JOHN CORNYN (R-TX)

$7,500

ORRIN HATCH (R-UT)

$95, 140

MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY)

$1, 579, 620

CORY GARDNER (R-CO)

$3, 734, 275

ROB PORTMAN (R-OH)

$4, 616, 326

PAT TOOMEY (R-PA)

$6, 116, 150

TOTAL

$16, 159, 511

(Senate authors of the secret healthcare bill that were not supported by the Chamber are Cruz, Enzi, and Barrasso)

With powerful special interests groups like the Chamber spending eye-popping sums of money to elect some of these senators, is it any wonder that reports about the secret senate Republican plans for health care reform show that like the House version, it will prioritize the interests of the big health insurers over those of the American people? The Chamber’s longstanding opposition to the ACA and its support of the AHCA are just another example of the trade group putting profits before people.

In 2016, the Chamber testified before Congress in opposition to the Paris Agreement, despite the fact that nearly half of the Chamber’s board members have taken public positions supporting efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Now, with a Republican President seemingly low on policy ideas, the Chamber has been able to gain tremendous influence over the administration’s energy policy.

Let’s start with President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, a decision he justified by citing a “study,” which claimed that implementing the Paris Agreement would result in large job losses. The Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy was one of just two sponsors of this sham study, which, much like many of the other alternative facts used to support decisions made by the Trump administration, has since been the subject of some well-deserved bad press.

As NRDC (and now several others) have pointed out, the report’s methodology is severely flawed, featuring unrealistically inflated job loss numbers. What’s more, the study also ignores the vast potential of energy efficiency, which could make reducing emissions cheaper and easier, all while keeping manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and improving the competitiveness of American industry.

In addition to providing Trump with a rationale to pull out of the Paris Agreement, the Chamber is also one of the lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan. It has opposed action on climate change and clean energy solutions at nearly every turn. The Chamber has sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more than any other government agency, suing the agency 15 times during a recent three year period, and filing amicus briefs against the EPA in an additional 11 cases. The Chamber also called for a “Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st Century” to put climate science on trial.

Of course, given the biggest companies that fund the Chamber, it’s unsurprising that it would ignore clean energy solutions and the dangers of fossil fuels to the detriment of the other smaller business members of the trade association. The Chamber is collectively receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco Philips, Occidental Petroleum, Philips 66, Hess, Apache, Tesoro Petroleum, Marathon Oil, Marathon Petroleum, Noble Energy, and Peabody Energy. And those are just the companies we know about! In addition, executives from ConocoPhillips and Sempra Energy sit on the Chamber’s board of directors. From repeatedly suing the EPA to undermining the Paris Agreement, the Chamber plays a key role in doing the dirty work for some of the world’s deadliest and most environmentally destructive companies.

While the Chamber has remained largely silent in the wake of Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, we’ve heard an outpouring of opposition from U.S. business leaders. All those that made statements disavowed the decision, and several, including Disney’s Bob Iger, have stepped down from the Trump’s Business Council. What was distinctly missing from these business leaders’ statements, however, was any acknowledgement of the connection between the money these companies give to the Chamber, and Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Membership dues and donations from companies like Disney, Gap, and Facebook (the very ones that publicly disagreed with the decision) are what makes it possible for the Chamber to fund things like the study Trump used to justify his decision to withdraw, as well as all the other anti-climate lobbying and litigation in which the Chamber engages. While it’s nice to see business leaders voice support for action on climate change, it’s difficult to take their statements seriously until they they stop funding the anti-climate Chamber.

Want to make your voice heard on this issue? Wondering what you can do to help? Join our #DropTheChamber campaign and sign our petition to the CEOs of Disney, Gap, and Pepsi and ask them to stop funding the anti-climate U.S. Chamber of Commerce!